A simplied method on thermal performance capacity evaluation of counter ow

cooling tower
Wanchai Asvapoositkul
*
, Supawat Treeutok
Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi, Bang Mod, Thung Khru, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 October 2010
Accepted 11 January 2012
Available online 21 January 2012
Keywords:
Cooling tower thermal performance
capability
Cooling tower analysis
Merkel theory
Predicting cooling tower performance
Performance curve
a b s t r a c t
The thermal performance capacity of a wet cooling tower is dominated by weather conditions, partic-
ularly ambient wet-bulb temperature. In this paper, the tower performance was predicted by a simplied
model which was characterized by specication of a mass evaporation rate equation. The purpose of this
study was to present a calculation that was accurate and simple to implement, and could be applied to
evaluate acceptance tests for new towers, to monitor changes in tower performance as an aid in planning
maintenance, and to predict tower performance under changed operating conditions. The results were
validated and showed good agreement with experimental measurements. The results were also pre-
sented in simple formats that were easy to use and understand. These allowed reduction of test data and
comparison of test results to design data. The method held a practical advantage for predicted tower
thermal performance capability to which it was best suited when both ow rate and temperature of inlet
water were near design conditions since it required neither the measurement of air ow rate nor the
calculation of tower characteristic h
mass
A=L. The expected results of this study will make it possible to
incorporate cooling tower design and simulation to evaluate and optimize the thermal performance of
power plants for example.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Cooling towers have many applications in the elds of air-
conditioning, refrigeration and power plants. In the case of power
generation plants or sugar mill plants, the cooling tower require-
ments are relatively large and it has been the practice in recent
years especially in Thailand to fabricate increasingly larger cooling
towers. For large towers or towers with special requirements that
are not Cooling Technology Institute (CTI) certied, in-situ testing is
the only way to guarantee that the towers will perform as required.
For this purpose, it is quite common to use the Merkel theory such
as that of CTI [1] or ASME [2] for the computation of tower char-
acteristic (h
mass
A=L) or Number of Transfer Units (NTU). The prob-
lems usually encountered in analysis of cooling towers for large
process plants included measurement of many test data with high
accuracy instruments, analysis of test data and comparison of test
results to design point. This is an expensive and time-consuming
process that should be undertaken only after due consideration.
The thermal capacity of a cooling tower is obtained by per-
forming the test. The test data should be evaluated by comparing
correctly with the design conditions that were instructed according
to the CTI cooling tower acceptance test code [1]. Incidentally, these
data are not only useful in the determination of thermal capacity of
the tower according to design conditions during the test run period
but can also be used to determine the operating characteristics in
the change in atmospheric conditions, especially temperatures.
Notable examples of techniques based on this approach are the
work of Fujita and Tezuka [3], Peterson and Backer [4] and Lucas
et al. [5]. They demonstrated that the cooling tower characteristic
curve predicted from the Merkel principle is simple in terms of
formulation and can provide reliable estimate of cooling tower
performance at off-design. By this method, the tower operating
conditions are determined directly using the slope of the cooling
tower characteristic curve.
Even though the method has been applied to predict the overall
thermal evaluation of cooling towers, there are some concerns
about simplifying assumptions of the Merkel theory such as the
neglecting of the reduction of waterow rate by evaporation and
the saturated water vapor (or 100% relative humidity) of air at the
tower exit. The method tends to underestimate the heat rejected by
the cooling tower but can be used if only the water outlet
temperature is of importance [6]. Kloppers and Krger also
proposed a technique to get accurate prediction by including the
water loss due to evaporation in the energy equation. The effect of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 662 470 9338; fax: 662 470 9111.
E-mail address: wanchai.asv@kmutt.ac.th (W. Asvapoositkul).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Applied Thermal Engineering
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apt hermeng
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.01.025
Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167
evaporation causes the water ow rate to decrease from inlet to
outlet; as a result, the ratio of water-to-air (L/G) varies through the
tower. These two effects (evaporation loss and variable L/G) were
investigated by Baker and Shryock [7]. For calculation of counter
ow cooling tower with evaporation loss, a constant L/G ratio
results in a 4.4% increase in NTU at a 22

C range. And evaporation
loss and varied L/G ratios result in a 1.34% increase in NTU at the
degree range.
The purpose of this study was to apply the cooling tower perfor-
mance characteristics to determine the operating characteristics for
thecoolingtower beingconsidered. Thestudywas alsotodetermineif
the performance curves could be used to evaluate thermal perfor-
mance of the cooling tower without measurement of air owrate and
the calculation of h
mass
A=L. And tower capacity was more accurately
expressed in terms of the ratio of water-to-air loading (L/G) that
included water evaporation and unsaturated air leaving the tower.
2. Theoretical analysis (basic equation)
The analysis considers an increment of a cooling process as in
control volume dz of Fig. 1 where water mass owrate L and dry air
mass ow rate G ow uniformly of plane area. All horizontal
sections through the tower are assumed to be the same, in which
both streams move in an opposite and vertical direction (water
moves downward while air moves upward).
A mass balance and an energy balance for a steady water-spray
ow with total exposed surface-area (air/water interface area)
element dA, as in ow path dZ (assuming negligible kinetic and
potential energies and work).
Mass balance for dry air
dG 0 (1)
Mass balance for water
dL G du
a
(2)
Energy balance
Gdh
a
Ldh
f w
h
fw
dL Ldh
fw
h
fw
Gdu
a
(3)
Heat is removed from the water by a transfer of sensible heat
due to a difference in temperature levels, and by latent heat
equivalent of a mass transfer resulting from the evaporation of
a portion of the circulating water. The energy balance on the water
side in terms of heat and mass transfer coefcients, h
conv
and h
mass
respectively, is
Ldh
fw
h
conv
T
sw
T
a
dA h
mass
u
sw
u
a
h
gw
dA (4)
The mass balance on the air side of the evaporated water mass is
Gdu
a
h
mass
u
sw
u
a
dA (5)
The simultaneous heat and mass transfer takes place and can be
expressed by substituting (4) and (5) into (3) and through rear-
rangement we get,
Gdh
a
h
conv
T
sw
T
a
dA h
mass
u
sw
u
a
h
gw
dA (6)
Nomenclature
A exposed surface-area (air/water interface area), m
2
Appr approach (T
w,o
T
wb
),

C
c
p,a
specic heat of dry air at constant pressure, kJ/kgK
c
p,w
specic heat of water at constant pressure, kJ/kgK
G dry air mass ow rate, kg/s
h specic enthalpy, or specic total air enthalpy, kJ/kg
h
conv
convective heat transfer coefcient, W/m
2
K
h
fw
enthalpy of saturated liquid water evaluated at
T
w
, kJ/kg
h
gw
enthalpy of saturated water vapor evaluated at
T
w
, kJ/kg
h
mass
convective mass transfer coefcient, kg
air
/m
2
s
h
mass
A=L or NTU tower characteristics
L water mass ow rate, kg/s
P fan power, watt
r
2
correlation coefcient
R range (T
w,i
T
w,o
),

C
RH relative humidity
T temperature,

C
T
wb
wet-bulb temperature,

C
Greek symbols
w specic volume, m
3
/kg
r density, kg/m
3
u humidity ratio, kg
w
/kg
da
Subscripts
a air
d design value
da dry air
fw saturated liquid of water
gw saturated vapor of water
i inlet
o outlet
sw saturated water
t test value
v vapor
w water
z z coordinates
Fig. 1. Control volume for cooling tower.
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 161
By applying and replacing the Lewis factor (h
conv
=h
mass
c
p;a
or
ratio of overall heat transfer to overall mass transfer), and ther-
modynamic properties of airewater, the simplied equation (6) is
Gdh
a
h
mass
dA
_
h
sw
h
a

_
h
conv
h
mass
c
p;a
1
_
_
h
sw
h
a

u
sw
u
a
h
gw
_
_
7
If the Lewis factor is equal to 1, we get
Gdh
a
h
mass
dAh
sw
h
a
(8)
And if the reduction of water ow rate by evaporation is
neglected in the energy balance, we get
Ldh
fw
h
mass
dAh
sw
h
a
(9)
h
mass
dA
L

d h
fw
h
sw
h
a

(10)
Integrating
h
mass
A
L

_
h2
h1
dh
fw
h
sw
h
a

_
T2
T1
cdT
fw
h
sw
h
a

(11)
This is known as the Merkel equation. Integration for equation
(11) is done by using Tchebyshevs method which gives a high
degree of accuracy in the case of large cooling ranges as suggested
by CTI [1].
2.1. Tower characteristics
The tower characteristics (h
mass
A/L) are a dimensionless variable
which can be determined by integrated value of equation (11) at
design condition. This value is based on the equipments design
requirements or is a measure of the difculty of the task [8]. In
cooling tower design practice, it is referred to as an accepted
concept of cooling tower performance [1,2]. For the given cooling
tower, its value depends on the ratio of water-to-air loading (L/G).
And the dimensionless variable, (L/G), can be determined from the
known waterowand known air ow. The h
mass
A/L value of a tower
operating at off-design conditions will not be the same as the
h
mass
A/L value at design conditions. An empirical equation useful
for predicting h
mass
A/L at off-design conditions is [8]:
h
mass
A
L
c
_
L
G
_
n
(12)
Values of c and n are determined from performance data
provided by manufacturers. Typical values of n are in the range of
0.4 < n < 0.6 [9]. If a typical value of n is assumed, the value of c can
be determined from L and G at nominal design conditions. Once c
and n are known for a particular cooling tower, the cooling tower
performance can be predicted at any operating condition given the
water inlet temperature T
w,i
, the ambient air wet-bulb temperature
T
wb
, and the ow rates L and G. The tower characteristic h
mass
A=L
can then be plotted against varying (L/G) ratio, and this gives
a measure of the ability of the tower to effect the transfer such as
shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Cooling demand curves
The water temperature and air temperature or enthalpy are
being changed along the tower and the Merkel relation can only be
applied to a small element of the heat transfer surface. Referring to
Fig. 2. Cooling tower characteristic curve with design point and test point.
Fig. 3. Cooling tower demand curve.
Fig. 4. Tower demand and characteristic curve.
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 162
the right-hand side of equation (11), (h
sw
h
a
) is the difference
between the enthalpy of saturated air at the water temperatures
and the enthalpy of air temperature at each location in the tower.
This equation is used to calculate thermal demand based on the
design temperatures and selected L/G.
Fig. 3 is an example of a curve, on which the required h
mass
A/L,
for a given inlet air wet-bulb temperature and range, is plotted
versus L/G with the approach as a parameter. This is known as
a demand curve.
Now, it is possible to superimpose the tower characteristic curve
(Fig. 2) over the demand curve (Fig. 3), the intersect being the
operating point for the tower being considered for the duty such as
shown in Fig. 4.
2.3. Simulation calculation
Cooling towers operate most of the time at conditions different
than their design conditions therefore the data extracted fromFig. 4
would be important information to have for plant thermal opti-
mization. For a given cooling tower, its characteristics are described
by equation (12) which (h
mass
A/L) will remain unchanged as long as
the ratio of water-to-air loading (L/G) is constant. Weather condi-
tions, particularly ambient wet-bulb temperature, will affect the
range and the approach of the cooling tower. The cooling water
temperatures relate to the range and the approach, as follows.
T
w;i
T
w;o
R (13)
T
w;o
T
wb
Appr (14)
A procedure for simulating the performance of a cooling tower
is the simultaneous solution of equations (11) and (12). The
sequence of the calculation is shown by the ow diagram in Fig. 5.
Starting with trial values of Appr for an ambient T
wb
and R, the
value of (h
mass
A/L) can be obtained from equations (11) and (12). In
practice, the equations are solved iteratively with the updated
values of Appr until the specied h
mass
A/L from equation (12) is
satised.
2.4. Modications
The calculating of h
mass
A/L is computed using either equation
(11) or (12) which is obtained once L/G is determined. A charac-
teristic point is experimentally determined by rst measuring an
ambient dry bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, air discharge dry
bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, and cooling water inlet and outlet
temperatures. The L/G ratio is then calculated as follows;
L
G

_
h
a;o
h
a;i
_
h
w;o
_
u
a;o
u
a;i
_
_
h
w;i
h
w;o
_

_
h
a;o
h
a;i
_
h
w;o
_
u
a;o
u
a;i
_
c
p;w
_
T
w;i
T
w;o
_ (15)
Once the value of L/G is known, the procedure for calculating
h
mass
A/L is computed using the enthalpy values at the measured
temperatures. This provides the evaluation of tower characteristics
(h
mass
A/L) on the basis of the true L/G.
If the effect of evaporation is ignored, equation (15) may be
written as
L
G

_
h
a;o
h
a;i
_
_
h
w;i
h
w;o
_
_
h
a;o
h
a;i
_
c
p;w
_
T
w;i
T
w;o
_ (16)
Fig. 5. Flow diagram for the cooling tower simulation calculation.
Fig. 6. Cooling tower test rig conguration.
Table 1
Cooling tower design condition.
Design condition
Water loading 60 L/min-m
2
Hot water temp. (T
w,i
) 38.5

C
Cold water temp. (T
w,o
) 33.5

C
Inlet wet-bulb temp. (T
wb,i
) 29

C
Inlet dry bulb temp. (T
db,i
) 36

C
Total fan driver power 185 w
Barometric press. 1.0013 bar
Liquid to gas ratio (L/G)
d
1.163
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 163
It may be assumed that the air discharge is saturated. There-
fore, the air discharge is at its wet-bulb. This is based on Merkel
Model.
The CTI code determines the test value of (L/G)
t
fromthe average
water ow rate and fan driver output power at the time of test. Its
value is calculated from [1]:
_
L
G
_
t

_
L
G
_
d
_
L
t
L
d
__
P
d
P
t
_1
3
_
rt
rd
_1
3
_
w
t
w
d
_
(17)
3. Experiments
3.1. Apparatus
The experiment was performed in the induced draft counter
ow cooling tower test rig (see Fig. 6). The tower was made of
standard industrial cooling tower equipment and material with one
exception e one side of its walls was made of clear high strength
polycarbonate material that allowed direct observation of the drift
eliminator, the ll under test, the spray pattern of the nozzle and
the interaction of the air and water. The towers inside dimensions
were 1000 mm 1000 mm with a total height of 3350 mm and
could accommodate up to 1500 mmof ll. Design conditions for the
tower are summarized in Table 1.
The spray nozzle was attached to a movable frame that enabled
accurate placement of the nozzle spray, which allowed for full spray
coverage of the ll under test. The test sections rain zone (falling
water below the ll) was adjusted to 400 mm for all tests.
Water was circulated by a centrifugal pump. The owwas varied
manually by means of a ow control valve and measured by
a rotameter. A 70 kW gas burner supplied the heat load to the
circulated water. The water was then delivered to an insulated tank
where its temperature was maintained at a constant value during
testing with two supplemental electrical heaters each of 9 kW.
Induced air was circulated counter owby an axial owfan. The
fan speed could be varied by variable frequency drives. Air velocity
was measured by a vane anemometer. Inlet and exit air wet and dry
bulb temperatures were measured with a Resistance Temperature
Detector (RTD) temperature probe which calibrated to mercury-in-
glass thermometers.
The specications of the measuring devices are shown in
Table 2. And the test rig schematic is shown in Fig. 7.
3.2. Procedure
In this experiment, the inlet hot water temperature of the tower
was kept constant while the ows of water and air were varied. The
tower test was conducted in accordance with the Cooling
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of cooling tower test facility.
T
wb,o exper.
(
o
C )
30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 32.5 33.0
T
w
b
,
o

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

(

o
C

)
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
-2%
+2%
Fig. 8. Comparison of wet-bulb temp. at cooling tower exit between the experiment
data and the predicted value from equation (16).
Table 2
Specications of the measuring devices.
Measurement Instrument Accuracy Resolution
Water ow rate Rotameter 2% 5 L/min
Water temp. RTD temperature probe 2% 0.1

C
Ambient wet/dry Temp. RTD temperature probe 0.8

C 0.1

C
Inlet/outlet air velocity Vane Anemometer 2% 0.1 m/s
Fan power Multi-meter 2% 1 V, 0.1 A
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 164
Technology Institute (CTI) Acceptance Test Code for Water-Cooling
Towers ATC-105 [1].
According to the experiments testing data were T
w,i
38.5

C
and L/G was 0.90, 1.06, 1.10, 1.14, 1.2 and 1.24. The ll of 600 mm
height was chosen for the experiments. The test was conducted
within the following variations fromthe test conditions. Circulating
water ow, heat load and range were not varied by more than 2%.
Instantaneous air temperature readings uctuated during the test,
but variations in average readings during the test period did not
exceed 1

C per hour for wet and dry bulb temperatures.
After reaching steady state conditions, the inlet and exit water
temperature was taken at every 5-min interval. A total of 12
readings were taken, and then an average was calculated. Inlet and
exit air wet and dry bulb temperatures were measured at the center
of each side of the louvers and that of the fan stack exit. A reading
was taken every 5-min, and then the average was computed. The
water ow rate was measured at every 20-min interval. A total of 3
readings were taken and then the average was computed. Fan
power consumption was measured by using a multi-meter. A
reading was taken at every 30-min interval. A total of 2 readings
were taken and then the average was computed.
4. Application and comparison with Merkel model
To calculate tower characteristics (h
mass
A/L) from the Merkel
equation, it is necessary to know the air wet-bulb temperature at
the inlet, h
mass
A/L, and the water temperature at the inlet and the
exit. The enthalpy of air at the exit is approximated from equa-
tion (16) where saturated air at the inlet and the exit as well as
no water evaporation are assumed. The saturated air temperature
at the exit can be determined easily from a Psychometric chart or
from a computer program [1]. Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the
experimental and numerical values of discharged air wet-bulb
temperature T
wb,o
. It can be seen that the outlet wet-bulb
temperatures from the experimental and predicted values are
in good agreement. The maximum errors were found to be less
than 2%.
If the properties of air at the inlet and the exit are known, the
effect of evaporation and the true air properties can be used to
calculated the ratio of water-to-air loading (L/G) fromequation (15).
The values of L/G base on equations (15)e(17) were calculated and
compared with that of experimental data as shown in Fig. 9. It
should be noted that the result from equation (15) were
Fig. 9. Comparison of L/G between the experiment data and the predicted value from
test values of discharged air properties (TDA), test values of discharged air properties
without evaporation (TWE) and test fan driver output power (TFD).
Fig. 10. Comparison of h
mass
A/L calculated from experiment data L/G and predicted L/G
from test values of discharged air properties (TDA), test values of discharged air
properties without evaporation (TWE) and test fan driver output power (TFD).
wet-bulbe temp. (
o
C )
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
R
a
n
g
e

(

o
C

)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
+5%CAPACITY
-5%CAPACITY
100%CAPACITY
Fig. 11. Cooling tower evaluations at inlet water temp. of 38.5

C.
Fig. 12. Predicted inlet water temp. at 29

C entering wet-bulb temp. and 60% RH.
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 165
determined from test values of discharged air properties (TDA)
while that from equation (16) were determined from test values of
discharged air properties without evaporation (TWE) and that from
equation (17) were determined from test fan driver output power
(TFD). The linear regression (r
2
) of the predicted values was ranked
in ascending order as follows: TWE, TFD and TDAwith the values of
0.657, 0.893 and 0.936, respectively.
Fig. 10 presented the calculated values of tower characteristics
(h
mass
A/L) obtained with L/G from experiments, TDA, TWE and TFD.
The difference among the data indicated the inuence of L/G where
result from TDA showed excellent agreement with h
mass
A/L ob-
tained from the experiment value of L/G. The linear regression (r
2
)
of the predicted values from TDA, TFD and TWE was 0.980, 0.974
and 0.876, respectively. The deviation was less than 2% therefore
the methods were understood to be suitable since percent errors of
about 5%e10% always go with the heat balance in performance
tests [3].
The values from TDA were plotted for the tower characteristic
curve, shown in Fig. 2, at the design condition of T
wb
29

C,
and L/G 1.163. The line was t to the model given in equation
(12). The values of n and c were found to be 0.531 and 0.764,
respectively.
5. Evaluation of tower performance
In evaluating cooling tower thermal capacity, the design
conditions of the tower must be available (either from the manu-
facturer or test data). In this illustration, the tower characteristic is
shown in Fig. 2. Its operating characteristics were predicted as
described in section 2.3.
With properly selected demand curves (preferably with given
constant inlet water temperature) and subject to certain L/G (pref-
erably with given tower capacity 5%) the method could be
employed to meet a wide range of service requirements. Fig. 11
illustrates evaluation cooling tower capacity curves for inlet water
temperature, T
w,i
38.5

C; this could be expanded to other inlet
water temperature if desired. Therefore, the operator of sucha cooling
tower can determine the tower capability fromthe graphas shownin
Fig. 11. In considering other inlet water temperature with varying T
wb
at water ow rate of 5% of the design ow rate, see Figs. 12e15.
The cooling tower capacity illustrationinFig. 11 was based onthe
assumption that the test conditions of the water ow rate and inlet
water temperature were near design conditions. The method has an
advantage in that neither the measurement of air ow rate nor the
calculation of h
mass
A/L was required. This method was proposed by
Fujita and Tezuka [3]. For practical use, inlet water temperatures are
within 2

C, water ow rates are within 5% and inlet wet-bulb
temperatures arewithin3

C/-17

Cfromthe designconditions [3].

6. Conclusions
A calculation method for predicting the behavior of induced
draft wet cooling tower has been developed, with a new method
that included water evaporation and unsaturated air leaving the
tower. In the case where those two conditions are ignored
(TWE), the maximum error from the predicted outlet wet-bulb
temperatures was less than 2%. While those two conditions
were considered (TDA), the predicted values of (L/G) were found
to be best suited with those from the experiment with the linear
regression (r
2
) of 0.936. The other predicted values of (L/G) were
determined from the test fan driver output power (TFD) that
gave r
2
of 0.893 and those from TWE that gave r
2
of 0.657. Hence
Fig. 13. Predicted inlet water temp. for 105% of design water circulation.
Fig. 14. Predicted inlet water temp. at design water circulation.
Fig. 15. Predicted inlet water temp. for 95% of design water circulation.
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 166
the results of the calculated values of tower characteristics
(h
mass
A/L) where the r
2
of the predicted values from TDA, TFD
and TWE were 0.980, 0.974 and 0.876, respectively.
With the available data either from the design conditions or the
test data of the cooling tower, the prediction operating conditions
can be presented in simple formats. The method is also applied to
predict the cooling tower thermal performance capability when
both ow rate and temperature of inlet water near design condi-
tions without the measurement of air ow rate and the calculation
of h
mass
A/L. Subsequently, the results can be used to determine or
optimize counter ow wet cooling tower design for a given set of
operating conditions.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the Thailand Research Fund
through the MAGWindow I Program (Grant No. MRG-WI525E078),
and the Thai Cooling Tower Company.
References
[1] Cooling Technology Institute, Acceptance Test Code for Water-Cooling Towers
ATC-105, Cooling Technology Institute, Houston, TX, 2000.
[2] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Atmospheric Water Cooling
Equipment PTC 23-2003, ASME, New York, 2003.
[3] T. Fujita, S. Tezuka, Calculations onthermal performance capabilityof mechanical
draft cooling towers, Bulletin of JSEM 27 (225) (1984) 490e497.
[4] N. Peterson, Luc De Backer, A simplied method to evaluate cooling tower and
condenser performance using the CTI toolkit, CTI Journal 30 (1) (2009).
[5] M. Lucas, P.J. Martinez, A. Viedma, Experimental study on the thermal perfor-
mance of a mechanical cooling tower with different drift eliminators, Energy
Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 490e497.
[6] J.C. Kloppers, D.G. Krger, Cooling tower performance evaluation: Merkel,
Poppe, and e-NTU methods of analysis, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbine
and Power 127/1 (2005).
[7] D.R. Baker, H.A. Shryock, A comprehensive approach to the analysis of cooling
tower performance, Journal of Heat Transfer ASME Technical Bulletin (August
1961) R-61-P-13.
[8] Stephen A. Leeper, Wet Cooling Tower: Rule-of-Thumb Design and Simulation,
U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Resource Application, 1981,
Ofce of Geothermal, under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07e76ID01570.
[9] D. Baker, Cooling Tower Performance, Chemical Publishing Co. Inc., NewYork, 1984.
W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok / Applied Thermal Engineering 38 (2012) 160e167 167